« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
When Blackwater CEO Erik Prince marches up to the Hill for a hearing today, he's sure to be confronted a portrayal of his guards as trigger-happy, remorseless, greedy mercenaries -- or as one former Blackwater employee put it, "lazy f**ks [who] care about one thing, money."
Prince's response, as indicated by his prepared statement (pdf), is to counter that with an image of U.S. military men and women "volunteering" to serve their country (although for a pot of money):
Under the direction and oversight of the United States Government, Blackwater provides an opportunity for military and law enforcement veterans with a record of honorable service to continue their support to the United States. Words alone cannot express the respect I have for these men and women who volunteer to defend U.S. personnel, facilities, and diplomatic missions. I am proud to be here today to represent them.
And countering Henry Waxman's numbers, Prince defends Blackwater's performance with his own numbers. Waxman's House oversight committee report showed that Blackwater had been involved in 195 "escalation of force" incidents since 2005, an average of 1.4 shooting incidents per week. From January 2005 to April 2007, Blackwater employees used their weapons 168 times. Waxman also reported that, in 80 percent of those incidents, Blackwater fired first.
Prince offers a different metric: in 2007, his guards have opened fire during only 56 of the their 1,873 security details for diplomatic visits outside the Green Zone. That's "less than three percent of movements," he says. (Think of all the times they didn't shoot.) As to what percentage of those incidents had Blackwater guards firing first, he doesn't say. Thirty Blackwater guards have been killed in Iraq, he says.
And, of course, Prince offers a version of the September 16th Mansour incident. According to the Iraqis, the Blackwater fired first, after a car didn't slow down enough at a traffic stop. In Prince's telling, the Blackwater guards came under fire first and from a variety of attackers (men toting AK-47s and "approaching vehicles that appeared to be suicide bombers"), some of whom "appeared to be wearing Iraqi National Police uniforms, or portions of such uniforms. Only five of the twenty Blackwater guards at the scene that day fired their weapons, Prince says. Based on "everything we currently know," he concludes, "the Blackwater team acted appropriately while operating in a very complex war zone in September 16."
The hearing starts at 10 this morning; we'll be providing running updates throughout.
Comments (12)
linda wrote on October 2, 2007 10:12 AM:Previously posted about possible link of Blackwater to Rep. Hoekstra and Josh did a link to Rohrabacher. Raw Story last spring linked Blackwater to Duncan Hunter, ya' the one running for Pres.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Massive_security_contractor_faces_growing_protest_0403.html
Googling 'Blackwater in CA' gets you more opinions on 'this' story.
TheraP wrote on October 2, 2007 10:13 AM:Support for the troops does not extend to mercenaries. If they want our support, let them stay in the military. If they become mercenaries, they can expect to be blamed and reviled. There is nothing "prince" can do about that.
I think we have only seen the tip of the iceberg on this issue. And public scorn for this is bound to grow. As it should.
moondancer wrote on October 2, 2007 10:15 AM:The official story is always a lie.
BabaCambridge wrote on October 2, 2007 10:47 AM:Call me a little crazy but these guys remind me of the Praetorian Guards of Rome who eventually become to people who selected the leadeership and then removed whoever offended their interests. I guess I just worry about folks with high powered weaponery who are accountable only to the bottom line.
What happens if someone starts to do things that cuts into there profits like say assign the Marines who are supposed to provide security to State Department personnel. you can say what you want about the military but most of them follow the orders of their superiors and can be prosectued for their misdeeds. They are atleast marginally accountable to Congress.
Healthguy wrote on October 2, 2007 10:48 AM:Is Bringin On Armageddon an Obligation for Right Wing Christians
Or only an opportunity? And is it a good idea to have our troops in the middle?
Mafalda Hopkirk wrote on October 2, 2007 10:51 AM:What will happen when these foreign wars end? How many crazed, trigger happy, unemployed mercenaries, lacking military discipline will be running around playing war in our streets?
tworivers wrote on October 2, 2007 11:15 AM:This is slightly off topic, but I can't help but notice the huge discrepancy between Erik Prince's professed Christian beliefs (and his board membership in the Christian group Christian Freedom International) and the business he runs. Does he think profiting off of war reflects Christian values?
Commenter wrote on October 2, 2007 11:17 AM:
thomas wrote on October 2, 2007 11:55 AM:Actually, it's important to remember that the American Volunteer Group, otherwise known as the Flying Tigers, was absorbed into the United States Army Air Force, and was known as the 14th Air Force, I believe. That is, instead of allowing the Flying Tigers to serve as a private group in addition to the regular U.S. Army Air Forces in the China-Burma-India theater, it became part of the official U.S. military.
I'm as perplexed as tworivers. That's not the Christianity I learned in Catholic school.
kenga wrote on October 2, 2007 12:36 PM:So, Commenter, are you suggesting that Congress implement conscription, and start with contract security personnel?
If not, why?
There might be some serious cost-savings in such a move!
Cinderella Ferret wrote on October 2, 2007 12:38 PM:thomas:
I suspect your Catholic schooling might not be considered Christian education by the Christianist movement the Prince belongs to.
psyoswatcher wrote on October 3, 2007 11:33 AM:Time to run Fighting Seabees again for the umpteen-hundredth time.